Wiretapping: No connection of the EYP with the predator – The case is on file – 2024-08-03 11:12:34

The case file for the case of telephone surveillance is placed on file for the part concerning the EYP, as absolutely no evidence has emerged linking the malicious predator software with this particular service.

This was the conclusion reached by the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Achilleas Zisis, as can be seen from the multi-page opinion that he submitted to the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Georgia Adeilinis, who had ordered the criminal upgrade of the investigation into this serious case.

The highest prosecutorial officer agrees, as pointed out in a related announcement, with her colleague.

On the contrary, in the judgment of the supreme prosecutors, there are sufficient indications for beneficial owners of companies who in one way or another were involved in the case for the offense of breach of privacy of communications, which, however, at the time of the commission of the offense was a misdemeanor and therefore the more lenient provision applies and the case will be referred directly to the audience.

The announcement Adeline

The entire announcement of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court that marks the end of the criminal investigation is as follows:

The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Georgia Adelini, issued the following statement today:

1. The preliminary examination for the wiretapping case was completed today, after (2) approximately two years in total, and (9) only nine months since the upgrade of the investigation, with its assignment by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court personally to the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Achillea Zisis, due to the major importance of the case and to prevent the risk of statute of limitations of the investigated acts. Time is estimated to be of the utmost necessity in view of the unusual scope of the investigation and the in-depth investigation of every aspect of the case.
2. Indicatively, according to her, among others, almost all the witnesses proposed by the plaintiffs-reporters and especially politicians, journalists, representatives of mobile phone companies, Commanders and Deputy Commanders and other members of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) in the last 10 years, members of the Communications Privacy Assurance Authority (ADAE) and the National Transparency Authority (NAA), Senior Officers of the Hellenic Police, the Directorate of Information Management and Analysis, Directorate of Finance Headquarters, etc. in recent years, as well as the Directorate of Electronic Crime Prosecution, a total of more than forty (40) witnesses.
3. Three Independent Authorities were engaged, namely the Personal Data Protection Authority, the ADAE (Communications Privacy Authority) and the National Transparency Authority, which conducted investigations, as well as on-site inspections of public bodies: Ministry of Citizen Protection (ELAS), National Intelligence Service (EIPS), as well as to companies and submitted their reports and findings.
4. At the same time, the Directorate for the Prosecution of Electronic Crime also examined witnesses, which carried out searches of companies and homes of suspects, during which documents, tax information and digital evidence were seized, which were then examined by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. Two requests for Judicial Assistance to the judicial authorities of the USA and Switzerland were made and answered. An audit was conducted by the Economic Police Directorate (Tax Police Department) on natural and legal persons and its conclusion was filed. Explanations were also received without prejudice, memoranda were submitted, etc.
5. All the requests of the parties involved were also satisfied, including the Judicial Expertise, which was carried out in the EYP archives by two experts, in the presence of the aforementioned public prosecutor. The preliminary examination resulted in an absolutely thorough conclusion of approximately 300 pages, which the above Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court submitted to the Prosecutor, who agreed with both its legal and substantive content.
6. From the above rich evidentiary material it is unequivocally concluded that there was absolutely no involvement with the predator spy software or any other similar software of a government agency, namely the National Intelligence Service (EYP), the Anti-Terrorist Agency (D.A.E.B.E.B.) and in general the ELAS (Ministry of Citizen Protection ) or any government official.
7. As for the provisions on declassification of communications, issued by the then Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and concerning the years 2020-2024, the procedure provided for by the Law was strictly followed, which, among other things, over time, does not require citation special justification in the above provisions, and the relevant provision, which was first established by Law 2225/1994, was continuously maintained by all Governments until the new Law 5002/9-12-2022, while it is also in accordance with spirit of the Court of Justice of the European Union (see the decision of 16/2/2023 of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-349/21). It is also noted that for the above-mentioned EYP Prosecutor, after the relatively disciplinary preliminary examination carried out by a Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, an exculpatory conclusion was issued, with which the Vice-President of the Supreme Court, President of the Inspection Council of Courts.
8. Further they arose “sufficient evidence” at this stage to initiate criminal proceedings against certain legal representatives and beneficial owners of companies, for criminal acts, such as the violation of the privacy of telephone communication, etc. However, these acts, due to their more lenient amendment in 2019, with the new KP (law 4619/2019), are punished as a misdemeanor and despite the fact that under the previous, as well as the current legal regime (old PC and article 10 of Law 5002/9-12-2022, which amended the new PC) they have the character of a felony, in application of the principle of retroactivity of the more lenient law (article 2 PK), in view of the time of their implementation, which concerns the years 2020 and 2021.
9. The required at this stage are “sufficient indications” for the initiation of criminal prosecution against the above individuals, which are mainly based on the finding that the companies in question are involved in similar acts of violating the privacy of telephone communications, etc., of politicians, journalists, etc. etc. and in other countries, combined with the fact of the existence of similar “targets” in Greece, it was decided that they should take the relevant accusation to the audience to check its validity or not.
10. Finally, it should be noted that in no other country has such a thorough (Judicial) investigation been conducted – with the participation of three Independent Authorities – for a similar case, and in most cases similar investigations have resulted in the imposition of simple sanctions and mainly fines against the above involved companies .